Is Rational Thinking in Business Always Better than Instinct?

Is rational decision making inherently better than making decisions based on instinct? I was struck by this question during a presentation by Dr. Michael Etgen at our IBM Academy of Technology Conference on Humans and Technology: Adaptation and Impact held in October. The rise of the “personal informatics” movement is creating a new class of tools that allow people to collect information personally relevant to them for the purpose of self-reflection, self-monitoring, or self-development. In a prior article, I described how data on how people access our social business cards creates a new awareness about our business reputations. This idea of having information about our quantified selves will allow us to improve who we are can also lead to several unintended consequences.

However this also leads to a challenging new reality: Rational decision making can be hampered by having too much information at hand. This follows very much in line with the thinking in this Newsweek article I Can’t Thinkthat the twitterization of our culture is causing our overloaded brains to freeze when we make decisions.

It makes perfect sense that having to deal with too much information is anathema to conscious decision making. The article refers to an experiment which examined the activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brain – the part associated with conscious thought and recall – and how we hit some personal limit after some degree of information being presented to us. After that point, we start making mistakes which in turn causes frustration or anxiety, shifting the brain activity to the emotional parts of the brain. In other words, we stop making rational decisions and start reacting more by instinct.

However, this asserts that instinctive reaction is generally worse than rational ones. I tend to disagree. I posit that instinct developed through training and experience can be better.

Malcolm Gladwell (Image via Wikipedia)

This is where the contrary evidence of Malcolm Gladwell in his book Blinkmay be poignant. The thesis in the book is that people can develop enough skill over long experience where their instincts can correctly make decisions that are faster than trying to rationally do so. He gives the example of an art expert who could instinctively tell that a piece of art was not genuine just by looking at it quickly even if they could not rationally describe what it is; they were later proven to be correct after extensive testing but their first impression was essentially the right decision. Gladwell described this as learning within and applying one's adaptive unconscious.

Art is one such realm of complex information and pattern recognition. But I’d beg to differ that this is level of skill is an indication of true mastery of a subject. There is longer historical precedence for this in the traditional Japanese way simply known as dō. Generically it is used to describe any kind of art. I’ve met people skilled in Chadō the fine art of performing the tea ceremony; someone else I knew was almost a grandmaster in Shodōthe art of Japanese calligraphy; Battodō is the way of fighting with the drawn sword, which I teach in my spare time. They use it not only to name the art itself, but also the philosophy of learning behind it. You learn an art form not just to know the mechanics or data behind it, but to develop the instinct to perform it without needing to think about it.

This challenge of learning an art is essentially a process of internalizing the decision-making process framed to a very specific context. How you get better at it is by learning to accelerate how you recognize known (often complex) patterns. The higher your skill level the more complex the pattern you can perform and make decisions on without having to consciously think about it. It is in effect non-rational because you are so attuned to the habit that your body may act or react before you even realize you are doing it.

Is there such a thing as Twitter-dō? I may sound silly but there is no reason why there can’t be one. The ‘truths’ or knowledge behind any such form require time, practice, experience, and eventually some degree of codification into established behaviors. In the modern world, we tend to call these ‘best practices’ and that is really what they are, simply carried to such a degree of practice it is instinctual.

What this requires in particular is recognizing patterns of situations. When you are being overloaded with information of types or content that you have never ever experienced before or even recognize then, yes, you will very likely fail. Instinct can only apply to patterns that you recognize and know how to deal with. This doesn’t require exact information, or even specificity of content; commonality or similarity is enough. Our brains were designed for this. We have pliable brain matter that can change and evolve with new information and experience. We are not simply engines that enforce predetermined rules like computers.

Can we do this without rationality? Flat out no. In fact, I’d argue that rationality is a required stage before you can reach levels of mastery and instinctive reaction. The rationality comes in the practice of some basic rules: deconstruct what is happening into components and actors on the components; take the time to compare this to anything you have experienced before; consider how you reacted before to see if it applies to this situation; apply it and see if you were right; if not try to remember what went wrong.

By remembering failure and correction, we fine tune ourselves and improve our instincts. We expand the realm of ‘what is possible’ in any situation. Written practices and business rules are, at best, guides created for specific situations. What we need to do is understand and experience for ourselves when these rules may break down. This pliable nature and the ability to correct ourselves are what help to keep us sane. Not learning or not correcting by accepting incorrect decisions or failure is the trap that Albert Einstein defined as insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.